We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harland & Wolff Group Holdings Plc | LSE:HARL | London | Ordinary Share | GB00BLPJ1272 | ORD 1P |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 8.375 | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | O | 0 | 8.375 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28/10/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | AIM Cancellation - Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC |
| 27/9/2024 | 14:03 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Appointment of Administrators |
| 16/9/2024 | 10:00 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Business Update |
| 11/9/2024 | 11:39 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Directorate Change |
| 23/8/2024 | 19:42 | ALNC |  FTSE Russell to remove certain companies on suspension of dealing rule |
| 23/8/2024 | 17:05 | ALNC | *Harland & Wolff to be removed from FTSE August 29 |
| 16/8/2024 | 12:31 | ALNC | IN BRIEF: Harland & Wolff revamps board as it looks for a future |
| 13/8/2024 | 14:41 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Directorate Changes |
| 12/8/2024 | 11:57 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Board appointments & other updates |
| 06/8/2024 | 07:45 | UK RNS | Harland & Wolff Group Holdings PLC Falkland Islands Port Replacement.. |
Harland & Wolff (HARL) Share Charts1 Year Harland & Wolff Chart |
|
1 Month Harland & Wolff Chart |
Intraday Harland & Wolff Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/12/2024 | 23:21 | H&W...PIONEERING TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY OFFSHORE AND MARITIME ENGINEERING | 5,424 |
| 13/3/2024 | 15:53 | Skeppy | 10 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 08/12/2024 22:21 by jaknife porky9,"No - What HARL actually wanted was a guarantee from the government so they could refinance the debt, HMG could have agreed an 80% guarantee." What HARL wanted was hopelessly unrealistic, it always was and should have been plainly obvious to anyone with just some basic financial acumen. The balance sheet had a massive blackhole, the business was massively loss-making and it was forecast to continue making losses for at least the next three years. If the Government had agreed to the guarantee then all that it would have done is kick the can down the road with administration happening two or three years later instead of when it did happen and leaving the taxpayer having to pick up a much larger bill than they are otherwise going to. And, in the meantime, Riverstone would have walked away with $100m+ of taxpayer money that they didn't deserve. The real travesty here is that the CEO was permitted to lead shareholders and Riverstone on a merry dance for such a long time. There were numerous times when he was obviously lying, including what he told everyone about the likelihood of a government guarantee and the progress that was claimed. JakNife |
Posted at 07/12/2024 11:40 by jaknife htrocka,"Every one wins.....except the share holders.....what a racket." It's also expected that Riverstone will have to write a significant chunk off of their debt (more than 50%). In the circumstances where the debt providers are getting hit so badly it's entirely reasonable that shareholders get wiped out. JakNife |
Posted at 16/9/2024 13:57 by williamcooper104 Would be a bit silly as it's likely any proceeds from suing directors would go to the company and its creditors first The liquidation equity would appear to sit more with HARLs customers who it looks like had their deposits spent on supporting HARL - looks like they have - whether HARL was able to do so legitimately unclear |
Posted at 16/9/2024 10:40 by jaknife Dear Longs,There's a new update from HARL just released: The key point for shareholders is: "The Board has concluded that the Company is insolvent on a balance sheet basis per its last audited accounts and most recent management accounts. Accordingly, contingency planning for the making of an administration order and appointment of administrators from Teneo is underway for the Company. This process will likely commence this week. Should administrators be formally appointed then the Company's shares would not resume trading on AIM, the 2023 accounts would not be finalised and admission of the Company's shares to trading on AIM would be cancelled in due course. In these circumstances, the Board expects there will be no return likely for shareholders having reviewed strategic options from the Rothschild & Co process." Many longs have been extremely critical of the comments that I've posted here in the last year. My first post was on 25 June last year and started off "HARL is technically insolvent. Friday's trading update notes ..." see: I would encourage longs to go back and think about their investment journey with HARL to see if you can learn anything. If it was obvious to me over a year ago that HARL was heading to zero then why wasn't it obvious to you? JakNife |
Posted at 12/8/2024 16:46 by jaknife Yes, there were at least three occasions where HARL spiked the share price by releasing "news" (which subsequently turned out to be false) but used the spike to place shares to raise funds. Completely bent. |
Posted at 12/8/2024 15:26 by garbetklb I've never been an investor in HARL!Spotting the RNLI rebuttal to the (pre fundraising....) RNLI Framework agreement rather put me off (my post 166). Then spotting a previous (pre-fundraising.... Triumph Subsea would be a v good place to start for anyone / any authority wanting to understand HARL. Maybe HARL were just a bit naive & unfortunate RNSing a £700m LOI on 10/12/2020 with a £100 company set up 9 weeks previously on 07/10/2020. And presumably Cenkos were happy with the announcement. But there must surely be more to it than this as Triumph's website had lots of news predating the company's formation....... Triumph never got around to filing accounts and have been struck off. Their newsfeed stopped abruptly after the mutual recriminations over the cancellation of the LOI. |
Posted at 07/8/2024 22:29 by jaknife The fat one has commented:Not even a tiny bit of contrition, it's apparently the Government's fault that: * HARL lost £140m over the last three years under his leadership * HARL's capital structure was hopelessly inappropriate * The company was left in such a precarious position that no sane bank would lend money to them * HARL decided to start a ferry service to the Isles of Scilly simply because the fat one felt personally slighted when the Isles of Scilly Ferry company awarded their ship building contract to someone other than HARL * The fat one repeatedly misled shareholders about the financial state of the company and the likelihood of additional finance being extended * A pre-condition for Riverstone advancing further funds was that he had to go Don't feel too sorry for the fat one though, he made sure that he received plenty of excessive rewards for failure whilst he shepherded H&W towards the knackers' yard. And let us not forget that this is the second such company that the fat one has guided to doom: Pay-out years off – if at all "Bosses John Wood and Chris Rogers sparked anger by driving supercars worth £200,000 up to the collapse and later buying back parts of the business in March last year." The fat one signs off with the comment: "I will take a bit of time out before deciding on what my next challenge will be." Your biggest challenge is being honest with yourself and your shareholders fatty! JakNife |
Posted at 22/4/2024 10:36 by jaknife Xenor,"I don't have a problem with the debt. What matters to me is whether thst debt can be serviced." What do you think that it means to "service" a debt? I would offer two sensible options: 1. Repay the interest as it falls due and an element of the capital, such that the entire loan is repaid by the maturity date. 2. Repay the interest as it falls due and the entire capital on the maturity date. HARL meets neither definition, in particular HARL can't even pay the interest and hence has to add the interest to the principal (aka "PIK" the interest, where "PIK" means Pay in Kind). Hence the debt just gets bigger (at 15% per annum I believe). If you search online you will find that there is an investment concept known as the "debt-service coverage ratio", eg: In the case of HARL this is a negative number, implying that HARL cannot service its debt. I write the above because I thought that it was accepted common ground that HARL CANNOT "service" its debts!? Indeed HARL needs another lender to lend money to it so that HARL can then pay off Riverstone. That is nothing like "servicing" the debt! I have yet to convince you that lending money to a client so that the client can then to pay off another bank is a complete anathema to the sensible banker. But I live in hope! JakNife |
Posted at 22/4/2024 08:50 by jaknife Keepdigging,"Simple maths, yards cost over £14MM, investment from FSS contract £77MM, equip bought by Harl to conduct BAU unknown,five vessels, new Marine arm costs unknown, Aqua Jet renamed Atlantic Wolff, costs unknown,Island Magee value estimated minimum £30MM without marine licence, win this appeal and end of the road for FOE & assest price flies North." I invite you to actually look at the accounts (it's a novelty I know!): The total fixed assets are £56.8m of which £12.6m are intangibles and £17.6m are subject to lease; hence, whilst you write the above, the accounts only actually show £26.7m of "investment". Indeed, if you look really closely you will find the "Shareholders' funds" section and see that "total equity" (ie that amount that the accounts suggest would be left over for shareholders after all the liabilities are repaid) is negative to the tune of £79.9m. So the point is that you claim lots of "investment" but the reality of the matter is that the accounts show an immaterial number for "investment" and then show a surfeit of liabilities relative to assets. So fundamentally there is a black hole at the centre of HARL's balance sheet equal to £80m. And that black hole keeps on getting bigger because HARL is (a) making losses, and (b) forecast to continue to make losses. * HARL's own broker (and nomad), Cavendish, forecast that HARL made a further loss in H2 of 2023 of £14m (full-year forecast loss is £45.5m - H1 loss was £31.5m) and hence the blackhole was c. £94m at the end of 2023. * And Cavendish forecast that HARL will make further losses in the current 2024 year of £23.5m! Hence at the end of 2024 the blackhole will have grown to c. £117m! Pray tell us, what exactly is the "rosy picture" that you want us to see, when we look at HARL's accounts, other than a huge vacuous deep black hole?! JakNife |
Posted at 05/3/2024 12:08 by jaknife seagreen,"BEN did me proud then the price of coal colapsed no position" And yet you defended BEN and attacked me here: When the BEN share price was a mere 15p. Are you now saying that our BEN debate has finished? That you've changed your mind from what you (rudely) wrote on 1 October? "HZM I had £100 worth and bailed after the last RNS" Let us remove HZM from the scoreboard, I don't like even numbers, this leaves just the three. "The other two are similar in that they have excellent order books and it should not be beyond the bankers to come up with a solution to provide liquidity they are fundamentally good businesses that need tight cost control. In return in all seriousness why are they both winning mega contracts of size if there was a real posibility of them struggling to make ends meet ...just does not make sense to me. I would have thought the risk reward lies with the patient small long position where as if either provides they have liquidity solutions you could lose a packet You seem to be basing a lot of your judgement that the CEO's are not honest and/or the clients are stupid and have not done their DD." Petrofac What is it about Petrofac's $1bn of losses accumulated over the last nine years and the losses that are forecast for 2024 that makes you think that its order book is "excellent"? What is it about the negative tangible book value, looming April bank debt repayment and the company's admission (this am) that it is in negotiations with its banks and bondholders that makes you think that their balance sheet is anything other than a disaster zone? HARL What is it about HARL's track record of losses every year that it's been listed AND the expected losses for 2023 AND the forecast losses for 2024 that makes you think that its order book is "excellent"? What is it about the huge gaping blackhole in HARL's balance sheet, and the fact that it has been in discussions with various banks since November 2022 about refinancing its debt and still hasn't been able to achieve that, which makes you think that HARL's balance sheet is anything other than a nuclear disaster area? I sometimes find it quite incredible that shareholders can't see what is plainly right in front of their eyes! For the moment I will accept that you have conceded defeat on BEN and mark the scorecard at 1-0 with the Petrofac and HARL games yet to finish. JakNife |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
